9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 802 - HC - GSTChallenge to appellate order - rejection of refund claim - time limitation - relevant date for issuance of provisional acknowledgment - HELD THAT - The petitioner has placed on record evidence that the appeal was filed in Form GST APL-01 through the online mode on the GST portal on 29.06.2022. Such filing was in accordance with Rule 108(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the GST Rules) and within the prescribed period of limitation. The sub-rule 3 indicates clearly that the requirement of filing a self-certified copy of the order appealed against becomes applicable, as per the first proviso thereto, only where the order appealed against is not uploaded on the common portal - In the case at hand, the order was duly uploaded on the common portal. In such event, the date of online filing is the date of filing of the appeal. Even otherwise, the filing of a hard copy is a purely procedural requirement. Consequently, the impugned order is not sustainable. The impugned order dated 24.01.2024 is set aside and the appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits - petition is disposed off.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund application under Section 54 of applicable GST enactments. 2. Appeal filed online within the prescribed time limit but rejected due to submission of hard copy later. 3. Interpretation of Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 regarding the date of filing of appeal. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner's refund application under Section 54 of the GST enactments was rejected by an appellate order dated 24.01.2024. The petitioner appealed this decision before the appellate authority, which was submitted online on 29.06.2022, within the prescribed time limit of 12.07.2022. However, the appeal was rejected due to the submission of a hard copy on 23.05.2023. Issue 2: The petitioner contended that the appeal was filed within the stipulated time and should not have been rejected. The respondent, represented by Mr. Rajendran Raghavan, argued that the date of filing the appeal should be based on the issuance of a provisional acknowledgment, which is considered the date of filing only if the order appealed against was uploaded on the common portal. Issue 3: Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 was crucial in determining the date of filing the appeal. The rule specifies that if the decision or order appealed against is uploaded on the common portal, the date of online filing is considered the date of filing of the appeal. The requirement to submit a self-certified copy of the order appealed against arises only if the order is not uploaded on the common portal. In this case, since the order was uploaded online, the date of online filing was deemed the date of appeal filing. The court found the rejection of the appeal based on the submission of a hard copy as a procedural requirement and set aside the impugned order, directing the appellate authority to consider the appeal on its merits. In conclusion, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 and directed the appellate authority to receive and dispose of the appeal on its merits. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
